Moresi v. State Through Dept. of Wildlife and Fisheries
| Decision Date | 06 September 1990 |
| Docket Number | No. 90-C-0205,90-C-0205 |
| Citation | 567 So.2d 1081 |
| Parties | Patrick Damas MORESI, et al. v. STATE of Louisiana, Through the DEPARTMENT OF WILDLIFE AND FISHERIES, et al. 567 So.2d 1081 |
| Court | Louisiana Supreme Court |
Arthur I. Robison, Nora M. Stelly, Allen & Gooch, Lafayette, for State of La., through the Dept. of Wildlife and Fisheries, et al., for defendants-applicants.
Lawrence W. Moon, Jr., Asst. U.S. Atty., for Kash Schriefer, Ivan Vaughn, Jr., Larry Breaux, and James O. Nunez, for defendants-applicants.
Paul G. Moresi, Jr., Moresi & Moresi, Abbeville, for Patrick Damas Moresi, Kern Alleman, Paul G. Moresi, and Howard Alleman, for plaintiffs-respondents.
Richard C. Broussard, Domengeaux & Wright, Lafayette, Charles R. Sonnier, Sonnier, Hebert, Cabes & Hebert, Abbeville, for Patrick Moresi, et al., for plaintiffs-respondents.
In this civil rights action by the plaintiff duck hunters against the state and its game agents for damages caused by unconstitutional arrests, searches and seizures, the principal questions are whether the agents' conduct violated clearly established constitutional rights in (1) stopping duck hunters for questioning in their mudboat, (2) searching ice chests and a boat compartment, (3) arresting hunters for failing to comply with duck tagging regulations, (4) seizing untagged game in the hunters' possession, and (5) detaining the arrested hunters 45 to 60 minutes and requiring them to take two of the officers in the mudboat to the hunters' duck camp. After a bench trial, the district court entered judgment in favor of the hunters against the state and the game officers for actual damages, punitive damages, and attorneys' fees. The court of appeal affirmed in the main but vacated the punitive damage award and reduced the attorneys' fees. Moresi v. Dept. of Wildlife & Fisheries, 552 So.2d 1259 (La.App. 3d Cir.1989). We reverse the judgment entirely and dismiss the plaintiffs' suit.
On January 11, 1986, the last day of duck hunting season in Louisiana's western zone, four game agents of the state Wildlife and Fisheries Commission converged on Stelly's Landing and Little Prairie Landing in Vermilion Parish to watch for game violators. Several of these state game agents were also commissioned as deputy federal agents. The agents were acting on a tip that a duck hunter named "Byron Begnaud" would be transporting a large quantity of illegally taken ducks--as much as a freezer chest full--via one of the landings. In connection with the investigation, it was decided that the agents would check all boats that came into the landings. Agents Breaux and Vaughn were stationed at Stelly's Landing. After checking the first two boats to come in that morning, they saw two youthful hunters, Patrick Damas Moresi and Kern Alleman, approach the landing in a mudboat towing a flatboat. The flatboat contained equipment and supplies. A large number of slain ducks and a large ice chest were fully visible on the bow and deck of the mudboat. After the mudboat landed, one of the agents boarded the vessel and inspected the ducks in sight. Three daily bag limits of the ducks bore tags with the names of "Paul Moresi", "Dr. Howard Alleman" and "John W. Darby" inscribed on them. Two daily bag limits of the ducks were untagged. The agent asked the hunters what was in the ice chest. One of the young hunters replied "Ducks from yesterday." The agent opened the ice chest and found three more daily limits of ducks, two of which were untagged. Agent Breaux summoned two other agents, Jukes and Schreifer, who had been stationed at Little Prairie Landing. When he arrived Agent Jukes asked to see the hunters' life jackets and was told that they were in a locked compartment in the bow. Jukes took the key from the boat's ignition, unlocked the compartment, and inspected the life preservers.
Patrick Moresi and Kern Alleman, then ages 18 and 21, told the agents that they had just left their fathers, Paul Moresi, Jr., a lawyer, and Dr. Howard K. Alleman, a doctor, at their duck camp approximately two miles away in the marsh. Agent Breaux testified that he told the young men that some of the agents would return to the camp with them to complete the investigation. Two of the agents went with the young hunters in their mudboat to the duck camp to verify that the tagged ducks had been taken by the persons named on the tags and to insure that the tags were not being used as a ruse to smuggle out the ducks supposedly stockpiled at a camp in the marsh by Byron Begnaud. After the agents discussed the violations with the fathers of the young hunters and verified the proper tagging of the limits of birds found in the boat, Agent Jukes lifted the lid of an empty ice chest sitting in front of the camp and glanced inside. The entire group returned to Stelly's landing where Patrick Moresi and Kern Alleman were issued citations for violating the federal game law and regulations by their failure to properly tag ducks killed the previous day. The agents released the young hunters but confiscated the ducks in the ice chest. Approximately 45 minutes to one hour elapsed during the detention. After reviewing the charges, the United States Attorney refused to prosecute.
Patrick Moresi and Kern Alleman returned to the duck camp on March 25, 1986. On the door they discovered a business card of Scott Guillory, Louisiana Wildlife Enforcement Agent, with a handwritten inscription on its back: "We missed you this time but look out next time!!" [Signed] "Jimmie and Scott".
Paul Moresi, Jr., Howard K. Alleman, Patrick Moresi and Kern Alleman filed a civil damage suit against the State of Louisiana and its game agents under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983, Article I, Sec. 5 of the 1974 Louisiana Constitution, and La.Civil Code art. 2315 for deprivation of their rights secured by the Constitutions and laws in connection with the incidents. Kern Alleman died before trial, and his legal successors were substituted for him. After a bench trial, the district court rendered judgment in favor of the plaintiffs against all of the defendants except for one of the game agents, awarding plaintiffs actual damages of $43,000, punitive damages of $4,000, and attorneys' fees of $32,939.10.
In its oral reasons for judgment the trial court made the following findings of fact and conclusions of law: The agents did not have reasonable cause to detain Patrick Moresi and Kern Alleman on January 11, 1986 or to conduct any of the searches or seizures. Moresi and Alleman in fact had not committed any offense. Although the agents honestly believed they were following the law as they understood it, they were in fact ignorant of the correct interpretation of the law. Therefore, they legally were not in good faith. The two agents who left the business card at the duck camp on March 25, 1986 did so by mistake, having confused the Moresi-Alleman camp with that of another. Therefore, these two agents are liable only for their negligence under state law.
The Court of Appeal, a panel of three judges, with one judge dissenting and one judge concurring in the result affirmed the trial court judgment, except for the punitive damage award which was reversed, and the attorneys' fees award which was reduced. Moresi v. Dept. of Wildlife & Fisheries, 552 So.2d 1259 (La.App. 3d Cir.1989). We granted certiorari to review the decisions below for possible errors in the selection and application of legal precepts. 558 So.2d 592 (1990).
Section 1983 of title 42, United States Code, in pertinent part provides:
Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation custom, or usage, of any state or territory or the District of Columbia, subjects or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceedings for redress.
42 U.S.C.A. Sec. 1983 (West 1981).
To recover under Sec. 1983, a plaintiff must allege and prove two essential elements. First, a plaintiff must show that conduct occurred under color of state law. Second, a plaintiff must show that this conduct deprived him or her of a right, privilege or immunity secured by the Constitution or a law of the United States. See 2 Rotunda, Nowak & Young, Treatise on Constitutional Law Sec. 19.6 et seq. (1986); and, S. Nahmod, Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Litigation: The Law of Section 1983, Sec. 2.01 (1986).
Although the statute's language does not expressly incorporate any common law immunities, the United States Supreme Court concluded that Congress intended that common law tort principles of immunity should apply to Sec. 1983 actions. See Nahmod, supra Sec. 8.01. Consequently, when an official performs a function integral to the judicial process or a traditional legislative function, the official is absolutely immune from Sec. 1983 damage liability for acts performed in those capacities, and, in general a qualified immunity applies to most acts of government officials. See 2 Rotunda, Nowak & Young, supra Sec. 19.21; and, 1 Cook & Sobieski, Civil Rights Actions Sec. 2.06[B] (1990). The decisions of the Supreme Court and the circuits demonstrate that the qualified immunity test covers all state and local government officers at all levels of responsibility with the exception of those who have absolute immunity. S. Nahmod, Civil Rights & Civil Liberties Litigation: A Guide to Sec. 1983, Sec. 8.14 at p. 261 (1979). See, e.g., Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 247-48, 94 S.Ct. 1683, 1692, 40 L.Ed.2d 90 (1974), appeal after remand, 570 F.2d 563 (6th Cir.1977) certiorari denied, 435 U.S. 924, 98 S.Ct. 1488, 55 L.Ed.2d 517 (1978) (...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wingard v. Louisiana
...R. Doc. 4-1, pp. 9-10, citing Burge v. Par. of St. Tammany , 187 F.3d 452, 482 (5th Cir. 1999) (quoting Moresi v. Department of Wildlife and Fisheries , 567 So. 2d 1081, 1093 (La. 1990) ).103 The ordering of a Schultea reply is discretionary. Avila v. Harlingen Independent Consolidated Scho......
-
Camper v. Minor
... ... fear of such lawsuits; the trial courts, through the rules of evidence and the adversarial system, ... State, 10 N.Y.2d 237, 219 N.Y.S.2d 34, 35-37, 176 ... State Dept. of Corrections, 133 N.H. 299, 575 A.2d 351 ... , Inc., 118 Idaho 830, 801 P.2d 37 (1990); Moresi v. State, 567 So.2d 1081 (La.1990); Muchow v ... ...
-
Benjamin v. Washington State Bar Ass'n
... ... and rehabilitation of impaired members[.]" 11 Through the LAP, counseling for attorneys is provided by ... for violation of state constitutional rights); Moresi v. State, 567 So.2d 1081, 1093 (La.1990) (In accepting the ... ...
-
Bott v. DeLand, 930387
... ... Executive Director Gary DeLand, Utah State Prison Medical Administrator Blen Freestone, and ... Moresi v. Department of Wildlife & Fisheries, 567 So.2d ... ...
-
Toward the decentralization of criminal procedure: state constitutional law and selective disincorporation.
...638, 642 (Inc. 1981); State v. Scott, 409 N.W.2d 465, 467 (Iowa 1987); State v. Vistuba, 840 P.2d 511 514 (Kan. 1992), Moresi v. State, 567 So. 2d 1081, 1084 (La. 1990); State v. Griffin, 459 A.2d 1086, 1089 (Me. 1983); Commonwealth v. Lyons, 564 N.E.2d 390, 392 (Mass. 1990); People v. Fauc......
-
Qualified Immunity and Federalism
...rights protections than those that the Supreme Court has interpreted the Constitution to provide). 407. See, e.g., Moresi v. State, 567 So. 2d 1081, 1094 (La. 1990); Duarte v. Healy, 537 N.E.2d 1230, 1232–33 (Mass. 1989); Morillo v. Torres, 117 A.3d 1206, 1214 (N.J. 2015); Stevens v. Stearn......
-
ON TIME, (IN)EQUALITY, AND DEATH.
...1118, 1120-21 (Mont. 1995); Brown v. Matthews Mortuary, Inc., 801 P.2d 37,44 (Idaho 1990); Moresi v. Dep't of Wildlife & Fisheries, 567 So. 2d 1081,1095-96 (La. (86.) Cochran v. Securitas Sec. Servs. USA, 59 N.E.3d 234, 246-49 (Ill. App. Ct. 2016). (87.) Frost v. Columbia Clay Co., 124 ......
-
Qualified Immunity and Statutory Interpretation
...Cir. 1996) ("Thus, Texas' law of qualified or official immunity is substantially the same as federal immunity law."); Moresi v. State, 567 So. 2d 1081, 1093-94 (La. 1990) ("The same factors that compelled the United States Supreme Court to recognize a qualified good faith immunity for state......